So Horrie

Is this the article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/world/africa/stellenbosch-south-africa.html

Some truth, mostly half truths and some inflammatory BS

Yes. That was it. Thanks, I couldn't find it.

The wine maker did not seem to be bs'ing.

He didn't say much.

What could be say? Eventually his land will go.

horace wrote:What could be say? Eventually his land will go.

The question is why? When Stellenbosch was originally settled by the VOC there were no black Africans within about 800 km of the area.

taipan wrote:

horace wrote:What could be say? Eventually his land will go.

The question is why? When Stellenbosch was originally settled by the VOC there were no black Africans within about 800 km of the area.

Weight of numbers.

As suspected, a simplistic view of the South African situation from the Jeremy Corbyn of Australia

taipan wrote:As suspected, a simplistic view of the South African situation from the Jeremy Corbyn of Australia

Huh?

If anything it was a pessimistic view about the probability of a might is right result.

Seems to me the article pointed to intractable problems arising from irreconcilable interests.

Your solution? I certainly did not offer one. 

Elsewhere I am posting another nyt article about the diabolical position of Baltimore. It tracks violent crime and the ups and down of different policing policies in the benighted city.

Apologies, given your normal uncritical support for the ANC I wrongly assumed you were supporting them in this, also.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for some form of land redistribution in SA, this is a cynical attempt by the morally corrupt ANC regime, to undermine a legally elected opposition party provincial government.

As usual, the big losers are the ANC supporters who have been moved 800km to a region that has neither no accommodation nor work for them.

Ta, but apologies are not necessary.

Of course much of the ANC leadership is morally bankrupt in inverse proportion to their bank balances.

You know you almost got it right post apartheid. Good intentions and a some genuine resolve in the air. Shithouse legislation and underfunded bodies led to increasingly demarcated and unresolved disputes. Then a reliance on outside financial aid led to this "rights based" versus "market led" models and deeper demarcation and hostility.

And of late (ten years or so) all efforts to move forward reasonably moulded by the lower courts and various land commissions have been scuppered by WTF you call the highest court over there, heavily stacked because just like the post war 'ropes' the new government has found it makes such a useful hard policy tool.

Land reform worked well in Zimbabwe did'nt it.....oh wait.

Big Dog wrote:Land reform worked well in Zimbabwe did'nt it.....oh wait.

Which version? When the Poms moved in or the more recent version?

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Land reform worked well in Zimbabwe did'nt it.....oh wait.

Which version? When the Poms moved in or the more recent version?

Obviously the more recent version. Mugabe stole the best farms & gave them to his cronies & turned the 'breadbasket of Africa' into a wasteland.

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:Land reform worked well in Zimbabwe did'nt it.....oh wait.

Which version? When the Poms moved in or the more recent version?

Or when the Matabele moved in circa 1830?

Aye. It has long been a contested area. Nothing much changes.

The original Zimbo land reforms were well received all round, with the exception of extremists on both sides. Just like South Africa good intentions go out the window once people who were patently unqualified to run an economy take over from those patently unable to run an economy where the means of production, land tenure and the labour force aren't rigidly controlled.